At least that Professor of Microbiology & Immunology knows some significant details about those alloys, despite not knowing if they even exist.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
"Top questions and doubts about UFO whistleblower, Luis Elizondo "
- Thread starter Christopher O'Brien
- Start date
Free episodes:
At least that Professor of Microbiology & Immunology knows some significant details about those alloys, despite not knowing if they even exist.
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
Except at thanksgiving where he takes his false teeth out and chases the kids around with them.
But you cant pick your family
Long ago, in a land far away, a peculiar relative who suffered an oil rig accident would pop his false eyeball from its ocular cavity and polish it up while @ the breakfast room table.
I’m just guessing he was keeping an eye out for the bacon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hollywood Tomfortas
Paranormal Adept
Ah, but the plot really thickens now! In fact, I might say that the (Star)Gates of Hell have just been opened for TTSA because I happened to scroll down and read the 3 comments on the Garry Nolan interview thread. Do you know about the wild and crazy rogue physicist Smilin’ Jack Sarfatti? He has been quiet of late, but his comment is dated 2 weeks ago so he’s back from his Warp Drive Walkabout. (Tell you more about him later, although once you Google him, you will never stop.)
3 COMMENTS:
-
Jack SarfattiDecember 29, 2017 at 2:06 AM
What Nolan says is much too vague. I gave an invited talk on meta-materials for the warp drive of the kind of UAV seen by the Nimitz planes in 2004 (Gimbal Video) at DARPA-NASA 100 Year Starship Meeting in 2011 in Orlando, Fla
UFOs crash and burn at 100 Year Starship symposium | STARpod US
100yssOrlandoSarfattiV6
My ideas on this also in Jim Woodward's Starship book, though he did not understand it properly not realizing I am talking about near EM & Gravity fields not far fields.
———————————
Frank StalterDecember 29, 2017 at 11:26 AM
Thank you for the comment Dr. Sarfatti. In fairness to Dr. Nolan, this did get put together somewhat haphazardly and he might have been a lot less vague if I'd asked better questions. Happy New Year!
—————————————
-
Garry NolanDecember 29, 2017 at 12:51 PM
Jack-- I agree it's vague-- this was a few questions on a Facebook group, not a presentation to DARPA...
The main instigation was a posting by someone from Scientific American about the "alloys"-- and my point that thinking the materials from a supposed craft would be far more complicated than that. It dovetails exactly with your proposal (of which I was unaware). I was aware of Eric Davis' work as well in this area.
In fact, I suspect these are not even metamaterials in the literal sense. Maybe call them "ultramaterials". One could imagine some kind of more advanced composites with local structures being "metamaterials" in the literal sense interspersed with local superconductors (per your talk PDF) or all kinds of other complex arrangements-- semiconductors, etc.
Main takeaway for me is to push back against the notion these are simple "alloys". I'll leave the physics to you, Eric, and others.
Never heard, but didn't took long to find some familiar links:
Jack Sarfatti - Wikipedia
So fooled by Geller, just like Puthoff.
It's actually quite funny how DeLonge (and Linda Moulton Howe) is trying to emphasize how they have extremely thin layers of extremely pure aluminum and bismuth, and then their consultant tries to make the case that those materials have to be some complex mixture of whatever elements and isotopes.
Apparently 99.9999% pure aluminum and bismuth are commercially available and used by the semiconductor industry. So how pure exactly were those amazingly pure layers? Being so thin and all, they had to be brand new, stored in a cleanroom and so on, right? Oh wait, they were supposedly crash debris from some desert, handled by who knows how many and in which conditions.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
This thread should work. It was started by another member, but could be used by anybody to describe their personal experience: Intro + my own personal experience
Randall.... You didnt tell us your mother signed up.
Last edited by a moderator:
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
Collectively, we couldn’t give a rat’s ass about, gender, race, or sexual orientation, as it is all about what’s upstairs in the gray room.
Hollywood Tomfortas
Paranormal Adept
Latest video (45 minutes) by Linda Moulton Howe, dated 1/10/18 on the subject of the 2 UAP videos and the Chain of Custody.
She’s been in touch by email with Astrophysicist Eric Davis who works for Hal Puthoff at Hal’s Institute of Advanced Studies in Austin. In turn, David & Puthoff are main contractors for Bigelow Aerospace.
From what I glean at first hearing is that there is a valid CoC for the 34 second Nimitz Tic-Tac video to Luis Elizondo and then back to an unidentified GS-15 Naval Intelligence figure who wrote the still Classified Nimitz TicTac report. But because the report was printed on blank paper and not official Navy stationery, then it could be sent ( as it was in 2008) to Davis, Puthoff and Bigelow who had enough of a security clearance as civilians to receive and evaluate the report, but they themselves are still bound by its classified status and cannot release it to the public.
The other video released (the 3 minute FLIR) does not have proper CoC because someone who is neither Elizondo nor the GS-15 guy) released that to the German folks who were working on a documentary about the sightings in 2007, I believe, which explains why it go on YouTube back then. Definitely no COC there.
But then Linda states that, according to Eric Davis, that FLIP video was shot somewhere in the Middle East, a quite far distance from San Diego.
Anyway, it’s worth a full listen, but I suggest if you are not a cat-person, then skip the intro where Linda shows off her cat named Chocolate. Start at 1:05. And about the 17:30 mark, she changes the subject to the big booms heard in Siberia, but then returns to the UAP videos discussion at about the 24:00 mark where she takes a question from someone in here audience.
She’s been in touch by email with Astrophysicist Eric Davis who works for Hal Puthoff at Hal’s Institute of Advanced Studies in Austin. In turn, David & Puthoff are main contractors for Bigelow Aerospace.
From what I glean at first hearing is that there is a valid CoC for the 34 second Nimitz Tic-Tac video to Luis Elizondo and then back to an unidentified GS-15 Naval Intelligence figure who wrote the still Classified Nimitz TicTac report. But because the report was printed on blank paper and not official Navy stationery, then it could be sent ( as it was in 2008) to Davis, Puthoff and Bigelow who had enough of a security clearance as civilians to receive and evaluate the report, but they themselves are still bound by its classified status and cannot release it to the public.
The other video released (the 3 minute FLIR) does not have proper CoC because someone who is neither Elizondo nor the GS-15 guy) released that to the German folks who were working on a documentary about the sightings in 2007, I believe, which explains why it go on YouTube back then. Definitely no COC there.
But then Linda states that, according to Eric Davis, that FLIP video was shot somewhere in the Middle East, a quite far distance from San Diego.
Anyway, it’s worth a full listen, but I suggest if you are not a cat-person, then skip the intro where Linda shows off her cat named Chocolate. Start at 1:05. And about the 17:30 mark, she changes the subject to the big booms heard in Siberia, but then returns to the UAP videos discussion at about the 24:00 mark where she takes a question from someone in here audience.
She mixes up those two videos (like most of the media) by stating that the Nimitz one would have the pilot voices, even though they are in the Gimbal video. And at about 32 minute mark she even explains how the videos are different, but again confuses which one is which. But obviously she is speaking about that Nimitz video and that incident most of the time.
She tells how that video made it to a "German group that was producing a documentary". That is most likely that Vision Unlimited which was hosting the clip, and a planned documentary is a plausible reason why it ended there, although there's of course the possibility there was initially some other group and they copied that stuff to that other company in Germany. Planned documentary would also be a good explanation for the reported existence of some PowerPoint file about it, which doesn't sound like something that would have come directly from navy sources:
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 9
The contents of that PowerPoint might be more or less just the text that was provided in the first message of that thread. Since those ATS posters, who didn't seem to have English as their first language and could well have been German, also had that event log, they didn't just copy some random video somewhere else but also had access to that other significant piece of information. That documentary would also fit to that picture, and might indicate that whoever sent those files there was somewhat close to the origins. She seems to believe those were leaked by someone doing that investigation rather than the pilots for example (even though the TTSA report states that the pilots themselves copied at least one gun tape).
That was very interesting information. She actually said that the Nimitz report was authorized by someone else than Luis Elizondo, so if it had been done by his group under his leadership, wouldn't he had authorized something like that? Or did she just mix up authored and authorized, like she mixed up Tic-Tac and Tic-Tac-Toe once in the beginning. That the investigation and report was actually done by someone else than the AATIP staff indicates again that the program itself was smallish and they just subcontracted work elsewhere. It's also interesting if there are both a classified and unclassified version of it. The use of blank papers also fits somewhat to other descriptions of an "unofficial investigation".
She also seems more or less confirm that the pilots themselves are free to talk about it and their part of the report isn't technically classified.
She mentions a radio show where Eric Davis tells what he can, which is apparently here:
Phenomenon Radio | KGRA-dB Archives
(I'm gonna listen that next when I have time)
At that stage her story is way off the mark. She talks about David Fravor, a couple of times as John Fravor, seems to think that he shot the Gimbal video, and somehow connects him being in the middle east at the time the Gimbal video was shot and... well, it's a mess. She obviously doesn't know what she is talking about anymore, so I don't think we got any new useful information about that Gimbal video there. Although my guess would also be that it was taken abroad, because why would they have to keep that as a secret if it was just some similar exercise on U.S. shores or something?
Apparently it was also too difficult for her to find out what that documentary was where Fravor was a cast member:
CARRIER . The Crew | PBS
Edit: listened to the first minute of that radio show, and she still confuses the videos there right in the beginning... What an investigative journalist she is... That Eric Davis bit starts at about 14:20. Probably not worth to listen the messed up monologue of Linda before that.
Last edited:
I decided to sleep on this before posting, but S.R.L has basically said it.
There is a long standing meme, there are no girls on the internet aka Rule30 . And while its gestalt is complex, one of its elements is:
And it works both ways, Gender is irrelevant.
You could sign up as a man pretending to be a woman, a woman pretending to be a man or a neutral handle/avatar.
Its your mind and posted content that's relevant, nothing else.
To all practical purposes there is no gender on the internet, only minds. its a level playing field.
Playing the sexism card when your content gets criticized will get old very quick.
You will get marginalized, but not on the basis of gender.
That i want to believe poster from the X-files is a bit of a joke to most here. Most here want to know, not believe.
Ideas and opinions are great, opinions presented as fact with nothing to back the claim will get tested. But that's a good thing.
Posit a proposition that the consensus think is absurd, like Billy Meier's photographs are genuine, and you will get marginalized, But not because of gender.
Male/female/neutral accounts could post that and they will all draw the same reaction.
Hollywood Tomfortas
Paranormal Adept
Jason Colavito (The Snarking Skeptard) weighs in on the mysterious meta-materials alleged to reside under the Bigelow Big Top in Las Vegas. But then he links to an article in Popular Mechanics about the discovery of the Hypatia Stone in Egypt , thus raising the question about the origins of these extraterrestrial droppings which I might headline as:
DeLonge Detritus: UFO Skat? Or Pennies from Heaven?
Egyptian Space Rock News Update: A Pebble from Another Galaxy and a Throne of Meteoric Iron
Over the past few months, ufologists linked to billionaire UFO nut Robert Bigelow have promoted a growing number of claims that they are investigating debris from flying saucers containing chemical properties never before seen on this Earth. Jacques Vallée, Tom DeLonge, and a former Pentagon official now employed by DeLonge have all made these claims, and journalist George Knapp even provided a sample of such a substance to a UFO exhibit at a Smithsonian-backed museum a few years ago. According to media accounts the Pentagon official, who oversaw Bigelow’s government contract to investigate UFOs, claims that Bigelow has buildings in Las Vegas to store such material
This is one reason that I was intrigued to see a report in Popular Mechanics this week that a suspiciously similar substance had been discovered in Egypt and had been analyzed by actual scientists. In 1996, Aly Barakat was studying Libyan desert glass, the same substance that ancient astronaut theorists pass off as evidence of a prehistoric nuclear explosion, and in doing so uncovered in the Egyptian desert a pebble embedded with microdiamonds that indicated it had an extraterrestrial origin. Now called the Hypatia Stone after a Greek astronomer, the rock was determined to be from outer space in 2013. It is plausible that the stone is a remnant of the meteor that hit the Sahara and created the glass millions of years ago, but as of yet no proof exists.
[ . . . ]
The stone contains compounds with chemical ratios that are unlike anything found on Earth—exactly the same claim (in the same language!) that Jacques Vallée used to describe the supposed UFO droppings that he had had tested.
[ . . . ]
It seems like it would be a stretch that a real-life extraterrestrial material of unusual composition would come to prominence right when ufologists are trumpeting their own versions, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Vallée had said last fall that the material he tested was magnesium slag from Argentina that had been “reengineered” into isotope ratios “100% off” from those of Earth, much as the Hypatia stone’s mineral composition is the exact opposite in ratio of earthly rock. DeLonge was unable to express what his substance was made of because he did not understand it, while the New York Times reporter who covered the Pentagon UFO office story said that Bigelow was possessed of “some kind of compound that they don’t recognize,” but could offer no details due to a lack of investigative prowess and a good deal of gullibility.
Whether all of these people are talking about the same types of extraterrestrial aerolites, or whether the ufologists are talking out of their asses, two things are clear: (1) When an extraterrestrial substance of unusual properties is discovered, scientists actually study it and report on its composition, and (2) it is possible to identify strange compounds, alloys, lumps of stone, and other oddities even when they come from the deepest reaches of space before the formation of the solar system, thus proving the New York Times and Tom DeLonge wrong about the impossibility of scientifically analyzing substances from space.
DeLonge Detritus: UFO Skat? Or Pennies from Heaven?
Egyptian Space Rock News Update: A Pebble from Another Galaxy and a Throne of Meteoric Iron
Over the past few months, ufologists linked to billionaire UFO nut Robert Bigelow have promoted a growing number of claims that they are investigating debris from flying saucers containing chemical properties never before seen on this Earth. Jacques Vallée, Tom DeLonge, and a former Pentagon official now employed by DeLonge have all made these claims, and journalist George Knapp even provided a sample of such a substance to a UFO exhibit at a Smithsonian-backed museum a few years ago. According to media accounts the Pentagon official, who oversaw Bigelow’s government contract to investigate UFOs, claims that Bigelow has buildings in Las Vegas to store such material
This is one reason that I was intrigued to see a report in Popular Mechanics this week that a suspiciously similar substance had been discovered in Egypt and had been analyzed by actual scientists. In 1996, Aly Barakat was studying Libyan desert glass, the same substance that ancient astronaut theorists pass off as evidence of a prehistoric nuclear explosion, and in doing so uncovered in the Egyptian desert a pebble embedded with microdiamonds that indicated it had an extraterrestrial origin. Now called the Hypatia Stone after a Greek astronomer, the rock was determined to be from outer space in 2013. It is plausible that the stone is a remnant of the meteor that hit the Sahara and created the glass millions of years ago, but as of yet no proof exists.
[ . . . ]
The stone contains compounds with chemical ratios that are unlike anything found on Earth—exactly the same claim (in the same language!) that Jacques Vallée used to describe the supposed UFO droppings that he had had tested.
[ . . . ]
It seems like it would be a stretch that a real-life extraterrestrial material of unusual composition would come to prominence right when ufologists are trumpeting their own versions, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Vallée had said last fall that the material he tested was magnesium slag from Argentina that had been “reengineered” into isotope ratios “100% off” from those of Earth, much as the Hypatia stone’s mineral composition is the exact opposite in ratio of earthly rock. DeLonge was unable to express what his substance was made of because he did not understand it, while the New York Times reporter who covered the Pentagon UFO office story said that Bigelow was possessed of “some kind of compound that they don’t recognize,” but could offer no details due to a lack of investigative prowess and a good deal of gullibility.
Whether all of these people are talking about the same types of extraterrestrial aerolites, or whether the ufologists are talking out of their asses, two things are clear: (1) When an extraterrestrial substance of unusual properties is discovered, scientists actually study it and report on its composition, and (2) it is possible to identify strange compounds, alloys, lumps of stone, and other oddities even when they come from the deepest reaches of space before the formation of the solar system, thus proving the New York Times and Tom DeLonge wrong about the impossibility of scientifically analyzing substances from space.
Personally she lost her credibility over the Caret Drone fiasco.
The Iron Skeptic - Issac's Hoax
http://forgetomori.com/2007/ufos/amazing-caretchad-drone-inspired-by-x-men/
Last edited by a moderator:
My quick transcription of some key parts of that radio show mentioned above.
Eric Davis explained the situation roughly so that, because they were the subcontractors doing the analysis work, they received (in 2008 according to LMH, and Davis didn't correct it) a non-classified summary version of the Nimitz investigation report, which probably doesn't contain all the details. He apparently had the permission from his boss Hal Puthoff to read the summary part and the assessments made by the pilots, but not the rest of it.
Here's the executive summary, if I got it right:
That in itself is already interesting, as it seems to support some details as they were in that Fightersweep article, like the detections beginning on November 10, instead of a for a couple of weeks in some other sources, and that they would have actually seen them descending all the way to 50 feet, which I earlier deemed unlikely based on what I understood those radars would be likely capable of if it happened from the sort of distances I understood it having been. The maximum height is also quoted as 60kft, instead of 80kft as in most sources.
This is how he read the assessments of the pilots:
After he had read those, he started to go more and more into Linda Moulton Howe mode, explaining how he interpreted the events, which didn't really match too well to the way they have been described by other sources, and then it got even worse and started to sound like some episode of that Ancient Astronauts crap. After listening that for a while, I came to the conclusion that I probably shouldn't believe much about what LMH or Eric Davis are saying without other supporting sources. But it is likely that what he actually read from those papers is from the real summary.
Davis explained that his/their own assessment, after eliminating all the other possibilities they came up with, was that "they were artificial technology that's under intelligent control and it's not made by anything on earth".
Edit: A side note about that 60kft vs. 80kft maximum radar detection altitude: This document describes that training area (SOCAL, Southern California Range Complex) and repeatedly specifies that the ceiling for training exercises is 80,000ft:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/socal_eis_vol1.pdf
For example:
It would make sense to have the limits set so that they can actually track whatever is flying there with their radars. Based on that, I'm suspecting that either the correct figure is 80,000ft as in most sources, or alternatively, their radars couldn't detect that UFO above 60kft even though it could detect other objects higher than that.
Edit: Another side note: Those plurals in the executive summary still leave it unclear whether they actually saw more than one target at the same time on their radar.
Eric Davis explained the situation roughly so that, because they were the subcontractors doing the analysis work, they received (in 2008 according to LMH, and Davis didn't correct it) a non-classified summary version of the Nimitz investigation report, which probably doesn't contain all the details. He apparently had the permission from his boss Hal Puthoff to read the summary part and the assessments made by the pilots, but not the rest of it.
Here's the executive summary, if I got it right:
That in itself is already interesting, as it seems to support some details as they were in that Fightersweep article, like the detections beginning on November 10, instead of a for a couple of weeks in some other sources, and that they would have actually seen them descending all the way to 50 feet, which I earlier deemed unlikely based on what I understood those radars would be likely capable of if it happened from the sort of distances I understood it having been. The maximum height is also quoted as 60kft, instead of 80kft as in most sources.
This is how he read the assessments of the pilots:
After he had read those, he started to go more and more into Linda Moulton Howe mode, explaining how he interpreted the events, which didn't really match too well to the way they have been described by other sources, and then it got even worse and started to sound like some episode of that Ancient Astronauts crap. After listening that for a while, I came to the conclusion that I probably shouldn't believe much about what LMH or Eric Davis are saying without other supporting sources. But it is likely that what he actually read from those papers is from the real summary.
Davis explained that his/their own assessment, after eliminating all the other possibilities they came up with, was that "they were artificial technology that's under intelligent control and it's not made by anything on earth".
Edit: A side note about that 60kft vs. 80kft maximum radar detection altitude: This document describes that training area (SOCAL, Southern California Range Complex) and repeatedly specifies that the ceiling for training exercises is 80,000ft:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/socal_eis_vol1.pdf
For example:
It would make sense to have the limits set so that they can actually track whatever is flying there with their radars. Based on that, I'm suspecting that either the correct figure is 80,000ft as in most sources, or alternatively, their radars couldn't detect that UFO above 60kft even though it could detect other objects higher than that.
Edit: Another side note: Those plurals in the executive summary still leave it unclear whether they actually saw more than one target at the same time on their radar.
Last edited:
So basically, if that summary says what Davis told, and it reflects accurately what is in that official full report, we are pretty damn close to actually having an official government investigation report stating that multiple fighter pilots saw an advanced vehicle that doesn't seem to be from this planet. And both those pilots and some of the investigators have gone on record to actually state that is what they now believe. That's kind of a ... big deal, isn't it?
And once again this new information we got (what Davis actually read directly from those papers) matches pretty closely to the other sources. So this story just seems to get additional confirmations instead of falling apart, like these things usually tend to go. I certainly haven't seen a UFO story like this ever.
And once again this new information we got (what Davis actually read directly from those papers) matches pretty closely to the other sources. So this story just seems to get additional confirmations instead of falling apart, like these things usually tend to go. I certainly haven't seen a UFO story like this ever.
Thomas R Morrison
Paranormal Adept
So I took at look at the “Offering Circular” (prospectus), specifically their most optimistic fundraising projection of $50M and the breakdown of fund allocations at that bracket, as you suggested, and I see no sign of the nefarious money-grab that you’ve suggested.
There are 11 principals, and they’ve allocated $3M to their salaries to cover two years, 2018 and 2019, which comes to an average salary of $136K/yr/person.
By far the largest fund allocation (more than 4X larger than any other line item) is 37% to “acquisitions or strategic partnerships in the Aerospace and Science Divisions.” I don’t know exactly what that means, but it’s spending on science and technology, which makes me happy.
Here’s the itemized breakdown, with my notes in blue:
“USE OF PROCEEDS TO ISSUER
$50 Million Raise
The net proceeds of a fully subscribed offering to the issuer, after total offering expenses, will be approximately $43.5 million. TTS AAS plans to use these proceeds as follows:
Approximately $12 million on operating expenses, which includes employee salaries in the amount of $7.5 million through 2019. We intend that, of the total employee compensation, $3 million will go towards compensation of executive–level employees and $3.5 million on employees with advanced science, Department of Defense or similar experience. The remaining approximately $4.5 million in operating expenses will go towards infrastructure, logistics solutions, office rent, warehousing and shipping expenses.
(6.9% to principals, 8% to employees, 10.3% to “infrastructure, logistics solutions, office rent, warehousing and shipping expenses”)
Approximately $3.5 million towards the purchase of larger office premises, research facilities and warehousing.
(8% to facilities)
Approximately $1.75 million towards durable inventory, which includes records, books, comic books, apparel and accessories sufficient to support growth for media sales internationally.
(4% to inventory)
Approximately $2.5 million on sales and marketing expenses through 2018, including engagement of a specialized creative marketing agency and a full-time PR firm on retainer for both product releases and corporate communications.
(5.7% to PR and marketing)
Approximately $16.1 million towards acquisitions or strategic partnerships in the Aerospace and Science Divisions.
(37% to aerospace and science acquisitions and/or partnerships)
Approximately $4 million towards self-produced cinematic projects of either existing or newly created original brands.
(9.2% film projects)
Approximately $2.5 million to support initiatives related to the company’s public benefit purpose – science and art education, research to benefit the public, citizen science, and support for veterans.
(5.7% to “to the company’s public benefit purpose – science and art education, research to benefit the public, citizen science, and support for veterans”)
Approximately $500,000 to set up and initially fund a non-profit organization to further support the company’s research initiatives.
(1.1% to a NPO research initiative)
Approximately $600,000 to repay a loan from Our Two Dogs, Inc.
(1.4% to repay startup loan) “
I think it’s also noteworthy that Bob Bigelow, who ran the materials analysis of the recovered materials for the AATIP (but he's under an NDA so he can't talk in specific terms), has recently unambiguously asserted that an ET presence is “right under people’s noses.”
So what's the apparent cause of these occurrences?
People embracing this technology, and focusing on it to the exclusion of everything else.
So immersed in the Tech, they tune out the real world in favor of the digital experience.
Smartphones have made it easy for us to stay connected at all times. But that can pose serious safety risks if someone decides to check his or her text messages, emails, phone calls, or any other mobile applications while driving.
Cell phone distraction rates are alarmingly high
The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
Texting and Driving Accident Statistics - Distracted Driving
11 teens die every day as a result of texting while driving.
Like i said you wont be able to resist it.
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated..............
You wont be able to help yourselves....... you will embrace it willingly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. I was aware of the cellphone/texting distraction in general, but thought that in your set of falling-into-water examples there might be something else going on.
Much farther out there, in my opinion.
Most of the members of his panel disagreed. But I'm grateful for the link to that discussion, which I'll carry over to the consciousness thread.
Did you take into account what the starting point actually is? The net book value of TTSA is less than $300,000 and they have 67,505,400 shares to start with, which means one share is valued close to the levels of sheets of toilet paper. Tom DeLonge owns the vast majority of those (through a holding company). The company has generated net losses for the past years and has been funded with interest bearing loans that DeLonge has basically given himself with agreements between his own companies (one apparently being some hotdog stand), and he has basically made an agreement with himself that he gets his money back as soon as some suckers have invested enough to cover it. Additionally, he has made a deal for guaranteed payments of at least $100,000 per year in royalties, no matter of actual sales. So basically he has a lot of almost worthless stock in a company that makes losses but still pays himself money in any case.
So now they are then selling that same worthless stock, $5 dollars each, even though the actual book value is $0.003. So the so called investors are paying something like 1600 times what the stock is actually worth, giving that loss making company a valuation of $400,000,000 or so. Those numbers are batshit insane.
Since the amount of stock they are selling represents only a minority share, even if they managed to sell a whole $50,000,000 worth of it, DeLonge still owns the vast majority of anything the company gains. So if the so called investors would pay a total of $50,000,000, their combined value would become about of tenth of that, and DeLonge would suddenly own most of that incoming money through the company.
That also means, if the company actually buys itself some real money making business (that 37% for potential acquisitions), DeLonge would own most of it through his companies, even though he didn't even need to invest in it. And since TTSA is a for-profit company, that is already promising its managers hefty salaries, stock options, royalties etc., and DeLonge is in a controlling position to change the rules as he likes and has mixed his other businesses with it, he has plenty of ways to gather his share of the money.
I'm suspecting these number and arrangements are such that they had to start collecting money with this sort of stock arrangement because it would look too much of a scam for typical crowdfunding sites. It would be also interesting to know why they are not allowed to take investments from Canada. Has there been some regulator who has intervened?
In any case, this way of collecting money is extremely costly. If they actually sold 50 million, the stated costs would be approximately 6,5 million. Which would mean around 13000 people who had made an average investment of $500 each would have paid just for the costs of gathering money from the rest.
But since the numbers seem to have stalled to around 2.4 million levels now, they most likely won't gather anywhere close to that much, and hence the relative costs of this offering are even higher, and the resulting stock has much less value, only a few cents. And by their own admission, those sort of levels means they would have little to no projects, and the money would be going to various expenses and paying back the loan. I doubt any of those investors actually get what they think they would.
Speaking of that current investment amount, looking at the archived versions at the Internet Archive, the average investment amount has stayed quite consistently around the $500 mark, except that there's a curious jump of an extra million between October 23 and 28. So it looks like if some millionaire (who may have been very, very drunk) has shelled out a million to basically worthless stock, or alternatively there's something more sinister going on with the figures.